New Delhi, February 15, 2026 – In a striking display of parliamentary statesmanship, India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized the independence of legislators' conscience over party discipline during a heated debate in the Lok Sabha on December 18, 1954. The occasion was the Opposition's rare resolution seeking the removal of the then Speaker, Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar, often regarded as the "Father of the Lok Sabha" for his foundational role in shaping parliamentary procedures in independent India.
The motion, moved by Vigneshwar Missir, a Socialist Party MP from Bihar, accused Speaker Mavalankar of partiality toward the government and lacking impartiality in his conduct and rulings. This was the first instance in India's post-Independence parliamentary history where a no-confidence motion was tabled against the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha. The resolution was admitted for debate after more than 50 members rose in support, meeting the procedural threshold.
The debate unfolded in the early years of India's first elected Parliament (the First Lok Sabha, 1952–1957), when the Congress party commanded an overwhelming majority of over 360 seats. Despite this dominance, the Opposition—though numerically weak and comprising parties like the Praja Socialist Party and Hindu Mahasabha—launched a vigorous attack, criticizing the Speaker's alleged bias and questioning his rulings that favored the ruling party.
Intervening in the fiery proceedings, Prime Minister Nehru addressed the House not merely as the leader of the majority party but in his capacity as the Leader of the House. He made a clear and principled appeal to his Congress colleagues, stressing that the issue transcended partisan lines and touched the very dignity and honor of Parliament.
In his intervention, Nehru stated: "I would like to address the House, if I may, in my capacity and the high privilege of being the Leader of this House and not as a leader of the majority party. So far as this majority party is concerned, I would like to tell them that not one of them is bound by any whip or any direction: let them vote as they like. It is not a party matter. It is a matter for this House, for each individual, to consider, regardless of party affiliations."
He further urged members to view the matter through the lens of parliamentary dignity rather than party loyalty: "Therefore, let us try to think of it not as a party issue but as members of this House, because this matter affects the hon. speaker, of course, but it affects the high dignity of this House as Parliament, it affects the first citizen of this country, that is, the speaker of this House."
Nehru expressed deep sadness over the motion's emergence, acknowledging that differences over rulings or decisions were natural but challenging the Speaker's bona fides was a grave step. "We have known the speaker for many years and we have seen him function... It is one thing not to like a ruling... But, it is completely a different thing to challenge the bona fides of the very person in whose keeping is the honour of this House," he remarked.
While upholding the constitutional right of the Opposition to bring such a motion, Nehru questioned its propriety and desirability, describing the allegations as striking at the foundations of parliamentary decorum. He defended Mavalankar robustly, highlighting his long service and integrity.
Nehru also appealed to the Chair (Deputy Speaker at the time, as the Speaker was the subject of the motion) to allocate ample time for Opposition members to present their case fully, ensuring a fair and thorough discussion.
The debate concluded with the resolution being negatived by a voice vote, reflecting the Congress majority's support for the Speaker. No division was pressed, and Speaker Mavalankar continued in office until his death in 1956.
This 1954 episode has resurfaced in recent political discourse amid contemporary discussions on motions of no confidence against presiding officers, underscoring enduring principles of parliamentary independence and the non-partisan sanctity of the Speaker's role.
The incident remains a landmark in India's parliamentary history, illustrating Nehru's commitment to institutional dignity over narrow political interests—even when his party held unchallenged dominance.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
